 | | Re: Urantia?
|
|
(...) I've only ever heard of it in passing. The official site is www.urantia.org and features an overview of the doctrines and history of that belief system, as well as an extensive discussion of "The Urantia Book," an anthology of teachings (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: VP of lego direct Q&A Transcript
|
|
(...) I honestly don't know. You'd have to ask someone who works for LEGO. I *think* they are, but I have no proof, no data, no substance to back up that thought.... it's just a feeling I have. Do you think this is what they're doing? (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: VP of lego direct Q&A Transcript
|
|
(...) So do you think that is what they're doing? (...) I think there are seperate issues here: 1. That eBay sales can be useful for determining what sets and pieces to rerelease. 2. That eBay sales are insignificant in terms of total LEGO sales And (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: VP of lego direct Q&A Transcript
|
|
(...) If this is what they're doing, then I believe they're doing a good thing. The original thread of this discussion however had nothing to do with whether or not they are actually doing this. It was about them releasing products to try and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Urantia?
|
|
Does anyone have essentially unbiased, yet informed, knowledge about a branch of Christianity called Urantia? I'd appreciate anything anyone cares to share on the subject. I am genuinely curious and I promise not to bite the hand that feeds me this (...) (23 years ago, 22-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
|
(...) Semi-publicly. It's hard to find his personal email on the site, as was noted. He reminded me offline that webmaster@brickshelf.com works (as it does for MANY MANY websites) but I would reply that this convention is not necessarily known all (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ?
|
|
Sorry for the double post but I would like to soften the tone of this entire thread by saying I'm glad Larry & Scott agree on something. (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... Pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
Put up or shut up. Everyone that reposted the link and jumped down his throat needs to apologize to Richard for doing the same thing he did. Now there is some common sense. (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ?
|
|
(...) Excellent! May I suggest that if he's willing, a group to discuss Brickshelf(tm) might be a good idea too. Not sure where to slot it in the hierarchy though. Discussion about Brickshelf seems to happen in various places now (.publish, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Q Re: ?
|
|
"Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message news:GruEy2.EHG@lugnet.com... (...) Yeah. The whole thing is a tricky situation, lets let that part of it die and work to come to an agreement on how to effectively deal with situations (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ?
|
|
(...) Good point, indeed. Last night I sent mail to Kevin about this image URL. Even I first went to the brickshelf homepage, didn't see a mail address, and took one from a post he made here a couple days ago. The message bounced! [1] (...) Doh! (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
|
For the Record: (...) [snip] (...) I agree. and that goes for -any- group, not just general. -Suz (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: ?
|
|
(...) Well, it looks like problem solved...but you are right (and not trying to compound the issue by "slapping richards hand", as several hands already did) I totally agree with Lar on the info at hand....sure there was a problem that needed to be (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ?
|
|
(...) That raises a good point. The logical place to look for contact info specific to a site is typically the site's "front door", in this case www.brickshelf.com (contrast with LUGNET(tm) which has a clear way to contact admins on the front (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
|
(...) Richard, Don't get uptight. Just learn from your error and move on. Scott A (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ?
|
|
(...) A simple "How do I contact the Brickshelf administrator?" would have produced the required information fairly swiftly. And discussing the "Why?" belongs much better here in .debate. ROSCO (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
|
(...) However, what's posted on Brickshelf is nothing to do with Lugnet. Kevin's the admin of Brickshelf, his email is publically available, he generally acts fairly quickly to issues re protocol on his sight - look at how fast the avatar "problem" (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
|
(...) And we applaud you for that. (...) Now you know what else can be done to fix the problem. (...) I, for one, think you did the right thing. Too many inappropriate things have sat on Brickshelf without anyone speaking out. This is wrong. It's a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
|
(...) I can leave everything else alone (cause others have already summed up my view) except this. Posting a link of vulgar pornographic content DOES NOT EVER belong on LUGNET. Its along the same lines of posting vulgar words in the .general group, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ? ... (Shooting the messenger)
|
|
Why’d I leave the post in .general & .admin? Honestly, because a general-community outline is needed for these type of situations. We’re the ones that’ll likely encounter these incidents first, so we should have some measures in place. Because (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
